There isn’t much doubt that the theory of eugenics is an unpopular one. Any individual holding a belief in eugenic practice is generally considered either ill or incorrect. Funnily enough, as Satanists, just such accusations have been levelled at us in the past, with negligible evidence that said detractors have any idea of what a eugenicist actually subscribes to. Bearing that in mind, it’s perhaps time that a few pertinent bits and pieces are ironed out, so that those who have a problem with the championing of eugenics can at least have an objective definition to petition against. Honestly, I’m doing you a favour.

To start with, here is what the dictionary definition states:

Eugenics: The study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, esp. by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

To those with even a passing interest in the animal kingdom, this is nothing new; it’s just called selective and/or pure breeding. For those with even a passing interest in Satanism, it would appear obvious why Satanists would espouse such ideals. With humans being merely another species of animal, there is nothing contradictory in hoping that a percentage of potential within a human would become unobstructed if it didn’t have certain physical hurdles to jump. Increased motor functions, advanced intelligence and more robust physical specimens would all be part of the beneficial product of humans breeding selectively. Perhaps at least carefully?

But this is where the issues arise. Because theories of eugenics have been administrated before, always accompanied by differing scales of genocide, the term is considered a biological landmine. The enforcement of such policy would lead us straight back to Nazi Germany, an unpalatable consequence or result for the vast majority of people; after all, nobody likes totalitarian regimes. But those who decry eugenics so quickly are typically making the wrong associations. No Satanist is suggesting genocide on any scale whatsoever, or the suggestion of a totalitarian regime that enforces the policy by violence, intimidation and murder. Nope, not once. What is being suggested is that the idea of consenting adults reproducing with a mind on better prospects for the arriving infant can only make sense. While totalitarian governments kill detractors, Satanists are suggesting that an increase in education on the subject of eugenics could remove the flawed tag that the term carries and, subsequently, allow prospective parents to make a more informed choice. Unfortunately, this proclamation at any level would see political revilement come from all angles – claims of racism, sexism, ageism, bigotry and all the other “ism’s” and “ist’s” would be expected fare. But to suggest that any person should believe that the only desirable traits worth breeding are found in their own race, would be an erroneous one. White people have intellects, athletes, artists and mediators. And irrespective of what you happen to believe, predominantly black and Asian cultures have such qualities as well. In other words, the spectre of mindless racism is immediately recognised and exorcised for what it is; putting words into mouths, where no such words would otherwise exist, purely to avoid objectively researching the merits of eugenic theory. Because all races, whether interbreeding occurred or not, would still have the same opportunities to breed what a culture considers desirable traits.

But, I mentioned education. And education shows that if it were only as simple as that! Unfortunately, the passing of genes is not as predictable as the above passage makes it sound. By two intellectual people passing genes to their offspring, they are not guaranteeing that the child will share a similar (or, perhaps, better) intellect. This is because certain genes only work to such an effect in combinations. Single genes rarely do anything on their own and it is, in fact, the combinations of genes that work simultaneously that will have the greatest effect. Because this, therefore, cannot be counted upon, the “exact science” of eugenics becomes an oxymoron. Now, without wishing to overcomplicate a topic that I’m not an expert on myself, let me put this point another way. If you want a cup of coffee (intellectual child), then certain ingredients (genes) will be needed make this happen. First of all you’ll need the coffee beans, then you’ll need the water, then you’ll require milk and finally you’ll need sugar. Naturally, many people like different cups of coffee. Some would like to put in extra sugar, some perhaps a bit of cream on top; perhaps you like to lace your coffee with vanilla, or maybe you like an espresso shot. The point I’m making, is that the more specific you want to be, the more ingredients (or, in the current context, genes) you will require. In saying that, the only two ingredients you actually need for a cup of coffee, are the beans and the water. Therefore, when recombinating genes into a preferred sequence, it is best for the prospective parent not to overcomplicate what is required. Cutting a very long story short, this line of thought, which is biologically sound, seems to be where the straw man of eugenics is blown down. Because no two parents can guarantee that their offspring will end up having the desired genetic trait, there is no point in trying to true breed children.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa sweet child ‘o mine. Not so fast.

The biologist who makes such a claim isn’t actually doing his sums correctly, which is a scientific heresy. First and foremost, the suggestion that eugenics is a banal practice on the basis of not being able to guarantee heritable traits, is simply wrong. If two parents are passing on the same genetic combination that allows for intelligence to blossom, the reproduction of that combination sees its chances increasing. If only one parent was to pass down his “brains”, the combination is far less likely. There is no guarantee, of course, but the percentages start to go in your favour. Even the simplest of mathematical equations shows this to be true; if we add two (one intelligent parent) and two (another intelligent parent), we are capable of receiving two, three or four of the genetic combination points. If we add two (one intelligent parent) to zero (a stupid parent), we end up with either two or one of our points. The point should be clear. Eugenic decriers are also deliberately ignoring just how such practices have worked with animals of other species. While speciesism is as prevalent as any other form of bigotry, that doesn’t mean that such sloppy analysis should be excused. Again, there is no guarantee of how the genes will recombine, but the evidence for the increase in percentage is obvious to anyone who cares to look. Of course, we need only look at the first sentence of the dictionary definition again to see why this is still a relevant ideology; the belief in the possibility of improving qualities is what we’re talking about. And because small percentages tend to become bigger percentages over time, I think the practice of eugenics is a particularly pertinent one.

Actually, getting back to the definition for a second it would appear I’ve only dealt with one facet; positive eugenics. Funnily enough, because this is the least robust of the two types from a scientific viewpoint, its concentration can hardly be considered a coincidence. While I’ve established that eugenics is a worthwhile activity from a positive angle, that it should be worthwhile from a negative point of view is a no-brainer. Once again, however, the problem isn’t one of comprehension or application; it’s one of politics. When we discuss the eradication of “undesirable” traits, politicians and liberals will typically mouth off about undesirable traits translating into skin colour. A government will only want its white/black/Asian participants to breed, thus breeding out the other races. Once again, common sense does not prevail. Personally, I would consider negative traits to be heritable diseases such as cancer, Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s – in fact you can take your pick. Once again, genetic theory validates this claim. If genes for an illness are not passed down whatsoever, there is no way that such illnesses can propagate in offspring (other than serious mutation, of which the chances are extremely negligible, if they exist at all). In this instance, the possibility that I commented on earlier becomes the elusive guarantee that people seem to believe eugenics cannot provide.

Of course, I’ve yet to touch on the environmental effects of eugenics. If we have two intellectuals and/or athletes, the environment that will be provided for any offspring will be conducive to the talent they’re likely to have. And while environmental factors play a far smaller part in the influences on children than most people realise, conscientious parents will ensure that the correct opportunities are provided for their children to make best use of their talents. All in all, I happen to think that the practice of eugenics is one that is particularly desirable for our species.

But I haven’t dealt with the implications of making such a move, politically and this is deliberate. Because widespread views on what is to be considered desirable would bedevil any lists that were drawn up, I’m advocating these ideas to be ones of personal choice. If a person wants the best for their children (whether they’ve had them or not), they have the right to be introduced to a less biased idea of eugenics so that it can be given fair and due consideration. If one were to pursue eugenics from a political angle, however, the implementation wouldn’t be as complicated as you might think. Temporary sterilization for children when they are at the beginning of their reproductive lives would be a huge start and one that I would personally champion. Not only would this have hugely beneficial social implications (smaller school classes, less hospital beds being taken up, less people on welfare, more jobs), it’s the simplest way to ensure those without the necessary responsibility won’t breed. I’m sick to the bone every time I see a twelve or thirteen year old pregnant in the newspapers, as they are utterly flaunting the law and the law seems disinterested in doing something about it. And while there would be an outcry that civil liberties are being impinged, any reasonable moral person would need to consider the rights of an unborn child to be born into an environment that will help potential to blossom. Personally, I have no time for third-generation welfare dependents who continue to breed in order to get more money from the state. Again, eugenics could be a first step toward eliminating such things.

I’m going to finish here, as this is merely intended as an introduction to eugenics and a starting point to the understanding why Satanists would support it. You are only advised to read this little musing and think about the very real possibilities that go with it, without considering it an exhaustive dissertation. Under no circumstances should you start making assumptions or insinuations based on what I’ve said, for I hate having words put in my mouth by witless complainants. Just read, interpret and think – for some of you, that won’t be a challenge.

PGD, or pre-implantation genetic diagnostic is about as close to eugenics options for parents that I think society and culture can tolerate at this point. PGD covers negative eugenics, such as negatively selecting for cancer and other gentically based diseases. Pretty soon it will also cover positive eugenics, as understanding of the roles genes play in constructing the human body grows.

In the light of politics, PGD used for personal eugenics is more likely to recieve opposition from the fundamentalist right than the libral left, because it involves the creation of several embryos, and since only one is going to be implanted guess what happens to the others?

Cultural acceptance of PGD will vary. Politically it is a null issue now, culturally it could possibly range from being widely accepted to being widely rejected. The later is a rediculous reaction considering the fact that culture is itself a eugenics program, with the reservation that it is not intentional or guided.

Of course the single greatest factor to anyones resistance of eugenics depends on how much a person can accept the fact that we are animals. But more than a hundred years after Darwin, people still have trouble realizing that animals are not immutable fixed species, and that man is only different from other animals by degree of certain traits. I think that even without the Nazis and there eugenic fumbling, there would still be a widspread abhorance of eugenics because of these two factors. So educating people on the possible value of eugenics would depend first on teaching people that the two beliefs stated above are just not so.

_________________________
"If a man empties his purse into his head no one can take it away from him. An investment in knowledge always pays the best interest." -Benjamin Franklin

Very good, very articulate essay. It would be better to focus more on the 'positive' eugenics than the negative, because getting rid of people with negative genes would cause too much controversy (mostly with liberals). Also supporting negative eugenics in politics gives racists an excuse to hate and gives reasoning to genocide.

Sadly, explaining eugenics to a average person probably wouldn't get you anywhere. If anything they would probably just get offended. There's not much place for eugenics in politics, better leave it to the intellectuals.

It seems that the drop in crime during the late 1980's and early 1990's in the US had very little to do with the suspected causes; the strong economy, increased capital punishment, innovative policing, increased numbers of police, tougher gun laws or an aging population.

According to Steven D. Levitt in his abortion paper published in 2001, the cause of lower crime was the nationwide legalisation of abortion in 1973. By 1970, New York, California, Washington, Alaska and Hawaii had already done so, and Levitt noticed that crime began to drop in these states around three years before it did so in the rest of the country.

To prove the point, Levitt submitted data showing that states with higher rates of abortion in the 1970's experienced lower crime in the 1990's.

Basically, the gloomy projections that that were made in the early 1980's, that crime would continue to increase to unmanageable proportions, never happened, because the millions of disaffected youth who would have exacerbated the crime problem were never born.

Clearly, this "unexpected benefit" establishes a strong case for negative eugenics. And without a Nazi in sight.

As soon as medical genetics begins to eliminate inherited diseases, and it will, I think the general populace will begin to perceive the word 'eugenics' as removed from its previous totalitarian connotations. Don't quote me on that, though.

Thanks for starting this thread, The Sixth Circle, I expect there will be some interesting reading here.

HS!

_________________________
~ Reverend Entity

Nothing is better than to live according to one's taste. - François Villon

It would be better to focus more on the 'positive' eugenics than the negative, because getting rid of people with negative genes would cause too much controversy (mostly with liberals).

And? :p

Quote:

Also supporting negative eugenics in politics gives racists an excuse to hate and gives reasoning to genocide.

No; that is only if they don't understand the concepts involved. Even if they tried to define the "eu" part the way the Nazis did, then it wouldn't really give an excuse to genocide, any more than abortion is infanticide. Of course, some would argue that latter point, but hey. There is a distinction. To anyone who claims otherwise, I would ask if they take a Catholic "every sperm is sacred" stance on contraception, for example.

Quote:

If anything they would probably just get offended.

Aww, what a shame that'd be.

Quote:

There's not much place for eugenics in politics, better leave it to the intellectuals.

A fantastic introduction to Eugenics! Thank you for starting this thread The_Sixth_Circle.

I also like the 1970 definition that I.I. Gottesman, a director of the American Eugenics Society gave.

"The essence of evolution is natural selection; the essence of eugenics is the replacement of 'natural' selection by conscious, premeditated, or artificial selection in the hope of speeding up the evolution of 'desirable' characteristics and the elimination of undesirable ones."

_________________________
ï¿½Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.ï¿½ Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

You did quite effectively cover the positive and negative aspects of the matter.

I will now state why I’m for positive eugenics (and positive eugenics alone).

Originally Posted By: The_Sixth_Circle

percentages tend to become bigger percentages over time

Originally Posted By: The_Sixth_Circle

If a person wants the best for their children (whether they’ve had them or not), they have the right to be introduced to a less biased idea of eugenics so that it can be given fair and due consideration.

Originally Posted By: The_Sixth_Circle

I have no time for third-generation welfare dependents who continue to breed in order to get more money from the state.

This basically sums it up.

Provided both the information and the proceedings are made available and legal for anyone who seeks them (with the necessary adjustments on general education) and welfare is revised and made stricter in order to disrupt the vicious circle, causing dysfunctional families to propagate from generation to generation, positive eugenics along with natural selection, are prone to give good results in the long run.

Based on the assumption positive eugenics would simply end up reinforcing the trend natural selection stands for, no need for compulsory measures would be ever required, would they?

First obstacle:

There seems to be no political motivation to disrupt parasitism based on welfare, to even allow the effects of natural selection to operate as effectively as they should, leave alone eugenics as an option. Right wing is religious; left wing bond to favour the less privileged. Parasites may still rely on that. This is an evidence in any country of the western world. (Crisis seems to be the only circumstance upon which politicians are prone to cut off on welfare, believe me I know).

Second obstacle:

Public opinion. I agree that genetic research for medical purposes (i.e of terminal diseases, reconstructive medicine) may be the proper approach to have eugenics dissociated from its negative connotations, in the long run. Public opinion is an obstacle for one simple reason: Politicians will not give way to its legal practice unless their voters are not scared about it.

There you go. No matter how small the number of people that will resort to it at first, the voter mindset shall have to change one way or another, so obstacles are political either way.

october1560

_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

One of my teachers said once that she much preferred studying genetic inheritance in drosophila because you could get them to breed with whichever partner was genetically appropriate in order to produce the desired trait in their offspring, she went on to saying that such studies would never be possible in humans because we have this...will... and would flat out refuse to breed without feeling love and a connection to our mate. Fruit flies on the other hand were so much more cooperative.

My point is that implementing eugenics in the human species would be very difficult, specially positive eugenics. Negative eugenics could be more acceptable, I mean some people are already choosing to abort a fetus after a negative result obtained from genetic testing. Even so, there are many who consciously opt for giving birth to a child whom they know will have major health problems. But I believe this type of artificial selection has a higher chance of success for acceptance.

The main conundrum with negative eugenics would be: what traits are so undesirable that would merit death to their carrier? Major diseases are of course a no-brainer, how about diseases that allow the carrier to remain a functional and a fully contributing individual? We could even move on more superficial traits, such as a perky perfect nose or luscious full lips, etc.

Concerns about it becoming an excuse for genocide are well founded, but then we are assuming that just about anyone could decide as to the details of it, I would personally think that it would NOT be a free for all, but there are a lot of nuts out there.

Anyhow thanks The_Sixth_Circle for bringing up such a fascinating subject.

_________________________
Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.- Josh Billings

No; that is only if they don't understand the concepts involved. Even if they tried to define the "eu" part the way the Nazis did, then it wouldn't really give an excuse to genocide, any more than abortion is infanticide. Of course, some would argue that latter point, but hey. There is a distinction. To anyone who claims otherwise, I would ask if they take a Catholic "every sperm is sacred" stance on contraception, for example.

If you can argue abortion is infanticide, than you can justify genocide with eugenics.

That is a really interesting point, one that I have not really taken into consideration. The idea that abortion is the leading cause for lower crime is an interesting one and worth taking a serious look at. It seems very feasible.

_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

Theoretically, I love eugenics like a fat man (with a plastic crow on one shoulder) loves doughnuts.

Especially with all the problems that overpopulation brings, I tend to believe, personally, that reproduction is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Even in the animal kingdom, not every organism gets his or her chance to shine.

Certainly, yes, it is more reasonable, straightforward, and much less controversial to focus on positive eugenics. (But, I also court the idea of negative eugenics, too, despite the problems it potentially creates. I even tend to think some people are unfit to be parents not only because their genetic codes are inferior, but because they lack the ability to properly raise a child, for whatever reason.)

It really wouldn't surprise me much that abortion leads to a drop in crime. Poverty is often a cause of crime, and poor people are often not so good at family planning. (There are likely other reasons, as well.)

_________________________
"Gentlemen, the verdict is guilty, on all ten counts of first-degree stupidity. The penalty phase will now begin."--Divine, "Pink Flamingos."

I always agreed with Dr. LaVey in the point that if you want to get rid of the world's problems you will have to get rid of people. Guns, eugenics, racism, sex, and naughty words are all just tools or traits of humans. So, if you want to solve the problems remove people that cause the problems and not the tools and traits.

But that is far from what the socialist goody goods want to hear.

_________________________
"I've learned . . . that life is like a roll of toilet paper. The closer it gets to the end, the faster it goes." ~Andy Rooney

"At last I shall have time to devote myself seriously and freely to the destruction of all my former opinions." ~Descartes

“The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool.” ~Richard Feynman

I see often that intelligent couples with good jobs and capabilities of both, educating and supporting children, often choose to have one child or even not having any.

At the same time, uneducated stupid people with no means, have four or five children.

Just like there are parameters set for adoptions, perhaps there should be parameters set to limit reproduction if the evolution of the homo sapiens if to be furthered, instead of allowing the species to become stagnant.

However I do not concern myself too much over these matters because as Magister Nemo often points out "things are they way the have to be" (please correct me if these are not his exact words).

I don´t have a strong interest in changing or improving the human race (I am far more interested on improving myself), perhaps we should ask ourselves, do we really want to improve the herd? And if so, can this be effectively achieved in practice?...

In any case, thank you for posting this essay, this topic is truly fascinating as it poses many interesting questions.

Especially with all the problems that overpopulation brings, I tend to believe, personally, that reproduction is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Even in the animal kingdom, not every organism gets his or her chance to shine.

No they don't and they shouldn't. Nature had been doing a good job of keeping undesirable traits from being propagated in all of the living species, that is until humans came along and decided that God wanted everyone to live reproduce no matter how unfit they were.

The problem with focusing solely on positive eugenics is that it would take so long for it to produce results, specially that you would need a large number of people to become the founding population, not in the thousands but in the millions. It would therefore be necessary to reinforce it with negative eugenics.

Mandatory sterilization for those who are unfit to be parents is an idea that has been around for a while, not only in the US but also in Canada.

_________________________
Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.- Josh Billings

I have had an interest in eugenics for a few years now and have read some of the literature. I agree with the objective of eugenics: to improve the genetic makeup of the human race.

So, I have made a personal choice of my own for the benefit of our species. I will not have children due to genetic traits that cause diseases such as cancer, diabetes, bad eyesight and alzheimers that have been passed down to me. It is difficult to adhere to this decision because I have a desire to rear my own children. Perhaps someday I will adopt a genetically superior child once I find the right mate for this task.

I would support a widespread one time clean-up mission (genocide) but since I fall into the genetically inferior category I cannot support it for my own sake.

EDIT: Well, I am not waiting any longer for your response because I have other things to do, perhaps you logged out. First off, I do not enjoy being called an Idiot. I am not an Idiot. If you have reason to believe that I am an Idiot and then tell me that I am an Idiot, then I would expect that you, an assumed Intelligent being, would support your claim with some sort of argument or razor point or two.

As far as that statement I typed is concerned, in my defense, and in case you are confused, I was making it clear that I support genocide for the ultimate benefit of the human race. On the other hand I also like living. Since I, by my own standards, would be worthy of death by my own idea of a proper genocide to benefit the human race, I would have to disagree that it would be the proper decision in the interest of preserving my life.

That statement may not have been necessary, it was pure opinion. There was nothing incorrect about it. I fail to see how I am an Idiot.

I see often that intelligent couples with good jobs and capabilities of both, educating and supporting children, often choose to have one child or even not having any.

At the same time, uneducated stupid people with no means, have four or five children.

Just like there are parameters set for adoptions, perhaps there should be parameters set to limit reproduction

Exactly. Not too difficult: Penalize recurrent situations. Or at least penalize subsidies. In legal terms, breeding in such terms should be viewed as the intention to neglect a child if not molest. And I do not see it too difficult to prove.

Same way I see Satanism as a matter of individual awareness, I see eugenics as a matter of individual choice, not a measure for global improvement. Yet, political programs must carry the colours that appeal the majority. That is, the herd.So, unless it is made appealing to the herd, the odds are it will remain illegal for “egoistical purposes”.

october1560

_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

Many great people come from not so great stock, killing people because their genes are not up to the standard laid out by another man is ridiculous. Genocide would not benefit the human race, the large gene variation of humans may well be why they have survived so long!

Why are you so concerned with the ultimate benefit of the human race anyway? I am much more concerned with myself and my own benefits, I do not care to worry about the 'ultimate good'.

I would only support genocide if it was done via war robots you pay a monthly fee to control from your home PC.

Legions of Hardened war machines!! Stomping through villages and eradicating the poor aids infested populous, Just 100 dollars a month folks and you can "from the comfort of your own home" control a multi million dollar mech soldier on your lunch break!!!

I would be cool with that.

_________________________
Careful when you sleep its when words creep.

You would know who the poor and infested are because your robot is equipped with a visual medium as well as vocal medium. As well as on screen intelligence info, a lot would be assumed but hey this isn’t diplomacy its genocide.

I only offer this as a semi-realistic example of civilized genocide.

Edited by MindAmon (04/18/0710:17 AM)

_________________________
Careful when you sleep its when words creep.

I think it's more about redefining what the "ultimate good" is. The reason why evolution seems to have been reversed or at least disrupted in the human species is because someone decided at one point that no one should die, thus creating a niche for lesser fit individuals to flourish and unfortunately to propagate.

Genocide serves to kill people based on their ethnicity, which you might argue is directly linked to their genotype, however I believe that is much too shallow and unfruitful since we know that true eugenics is a lot more skin deep.

_________________________
Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.- Josh Billings

Genocide serves to kill people based on their ethnicity, which you might argue is directly linked to their genotype, however I believe that is much too shallow and unfruitful since we know that true eugenics is a lot more skin deep.

I do not promote genocide, I think it is ridiculous that a discussion is developing around it. We are Satanists, we are true individuals, surely no-one here agrees that genocide could possibly be a good thing.

As for Eugenics, I do not have a solid position on it. This is not because I am not interested but because I find it hard to decide what is 'morally' right in this situation. I do agree with positive Eugenics, I am undecided on negative Eugenics (or at least to what extent this could be implemented), although I am very interested to see what does happen, if anything.

Well the goal of eugenics is to steer evolution towards a certain direction and that in my opinion would be best served by promoting reproduction among the fittest of individuals while preventing as much as possible the reproduction of the least fit.

I too find it odd that so much attention has been given to genocide as a possible solution, I mean who the hell is gonna bury all of those corpses??

_________________________
Life consists not in holding good cards but in playing those you hold well.- Josh Billings

Based on the assumption positive eugenics would simply end up reinforcing the trend natural selection stands for, no need for compulsory measures would be ever required, would they?

Ideally, they wouldn't. But realistically, they would.

Looking toward the betterment of the species as a whole or even just of your own offspring requires long term thinking. The intelligent and conscientious will do this anyway, but it's not their offspring a positive eugenics program would be seeking to avoid.

I can look to my extended family on my mother's side for examples not entirely based on the desire for more welfare funds to squander. The crackhead who wanted to hold on to her husband and figured yet another baby would be the trick. (That baby is now almost a teen and has spent most of his life bounced from foster family to foster family when not living with one or the other of his incompetent drug-addled parents. He's a bottomless pit for attention, and a know-it-all moron just like his father. Give him a few years, he'll be exactly the same as his parents, drugs and all.) The random cousins who party, get high, and later find they're pregnant because since when do drunks remember their pill or a rubber? Etc. I have cousins back east I've never heard of, and when I do hear about them, they're usually my age or younger and they've already had drug problems and children.

These people are either too stupid or too self-centered on short term thinking to go along with any sort of voluntary eugenics. Judging from the news, they're not the only nitwits around that are breeding. Some compulsory sterilization would be necessary.

I wonder if it might work to pay them for getting sterilized? Money usually is a bigger enticement for these types than ideals.

I've been reading a book by neurologist Alice W. Flaherty called The Midnight Disease: The Drive to Write, Writer's Block, and the Creative Brain and was struck this afternoon by the following passage in the chapter dedicated to links between creativity and mental illness:

Quote:

As I have mentioned, though, the people who are the most creative - or at least productive - are not the mentally ill but their close relatives. Researchers think that most mental illnesses are caused by multiple genes and that close relatives have some, but not all, of those genes. One explanation of why those genes have persisted through the ages, and do not get bred out of the population, is that they may give some advantage - perhaps creativity - to people who have a smaller number of them - even if a larger number cause the disease.

Clear examples of such genes exist outside of neuroscience. The sickle cell gene, for instance, protects its bearer against malaria but causes anemia. People who have only one copy of it have only a mild anemia and, if they live in an area where malaria is common, are at great advantage. Having two copies of the gene, however, produces a devastating anemia. A similar but more multifactorial pattern of inheritance may explain the persistence of genes that cause manic-depression and perhaps unipolar depression.

It's an interesting problem - if negative eugenics were pursued, where to draw the line between what might be mild mental illness that actually contributes to society through culture and art and more severe mental illness that might result in events like yesterday's massacre? This would especially be problematic if said eugenics program was done through selective abortion and genetic tests since we don't fully know what the whole genetic balance is yet.

(Not that I'm necessarily in favor of negative eugenics - my family's nutty and I have had bouts with unipolar depression in the past decade but I'm glad I'm here.)

It could also bring issues for positive eugenics in the sense of trying to select for more artistic ability could result in an overabundance of the genes in question leading to more severe mental illness.

It's funny how, in the space of one sentence, you manage to hit on the main problem that sits behind every single recurring problem on the planet; whether it be psychological, sociological, biological or otherwise.

People are intent on dealing with the effects as opposed to the cause.

That should be a bumper sticker on the back of every soccer-mom's van!

_________________________
ï¿½Love is one of the most intense feelings felt by man; another is hate. Forcing yourself to feel indiscriminate love is very unnatural. If you try to love everyone you only lessen your feelings for those who deserve your love. Repressed hatred can lead to many physical and emotional aliments. By learning to release your hatred towards those who deserve it, you cleanse yourself of these malignant emotions and need not take your pent-up hatred out on your loved ones.ï¿½ Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible

I totally agree with you, except for the method (at least for the time being). While equating the obstacles, I realized there might be more feasible approaches that could be set the practice right now, to start eliminating part of the problem, without messing too much with the herd values, and have the whole thing politically aborted right from the start. Like it or not, numbers speak louder when it comes to politics. So the herd is still needed for politics to turn in the right direction.

Money works wonders on those environments, you’re absolutely right there, but compulsory sterilization is not feasible, for the time being is it? Now, how would the middle class public respond to the idea, of having irresponsible parents FINED or PENALIZED, for neglecting their children, by breeding more on a impoverished or decadent environment? (Remember not only their sentiment for “the unfortunate children”, but also their selfish motivations as they realize it will most likely diminish crime, taxation, and improve their life style in the long run). Maybe well enough to have politicians to consider regulating those situations more strictly and save money on the process. Maybe after that sterilization wouldn’t look as obnoxious, for all those who didn’t want to be fined or penalized.Money works wonders, withdraw the money and it will work twice as better. Leave alone the fact no one would have to “bribe” anyone. Sterilization is not illegal, compulsory sterilization still is. Except for serious sexual offenses.One less problem: Voluntary sterilization.I’m sure crackheads would be first.We’re not talking science fiction, nor megalomaniac ideals here, are we? Eugenics is possible, but has to be accepted. Extreme measures subscribed by negative eugenics, are not rational, nor acceptable, therefore not feasible. Who would assume responsibility for such an agenda, or the criteria to implement it? Realistically?

Eliminate the source, yes, but leave it to the source to eliminate itself in the long run, by withdrawing their artificial means of survival, or turn their own compulsions against them, (maybe "bribe" the latter a little, for a matter of speach - If you want crack you know you'll have to stop breeding).

october1560

_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

After reconsidering my statements I still think that eliminating certain people would be beneficial. Many factors would have to be weighed before determining whether a person would be worthy of death. Are they productive or a drain on the economy? Do they carry horrible and incurable diseases? Are they chronic criminals? There is a long list of people that I am sure many would agree to see removed permanently from society. Exceptions could be made for the great minds and the responsible.

Genocide may be the wrong term if it is meant only in a racial context.

I am just musing on the possibilities of using genocide. I doubt it is in itself economically feasible. Like Ixmucane said, "Who would bury all those people?"

As far as the "ultimate good" of the human race is concerned, yes, I would support any cause that benefits all people, so long as it included me.

Oh, I know there's no way compulsory sterilization would go over in the current and foreseeable climate. We're still hearing the bitching about the last time they tried such a thing (with patients in insane asylums in the earlier part of 1900s, possibly into the 60s.) And there's no end to complaints and handwringing about China's one-child policy, even though that does allow for limited breeding.

That's why I suggested paid (voluntary) sterilization - probably the best way to get the ball rolling. As you said, crackheads will be first. They'd look at even a payment of a thousand dollars and drool. The big issue might be figuring out an iron-clad waiver such that the state doesn't get sued later when said crackheads are enticed by lawyers promising an even bigger payoff from a lawsuit.

I like your fines and penalization idea. People would certainly get behind that (so long as they figure no one will ever investigate them!) Neglect of current children first, maybe later it could be expanded into the "breeding more on a impoverished or decadent environment". And making it clear there will be no more increases in welfare for more children. Of course, it begs the question of what to do with druggie parents who don't have the money for a fine. I don't think the jails could hold them all, even with short incarcerations. We can't seem to hand out effective sentances to parents who beat their kids to death, let alone for smaller abuses.

Negative eugenics in any form would certainly be a logistical nightmare, and you're right that it is effectively a pipe dream as things stand now. Although, every so often there's a story on the news about a rash of lethal overdoses whenever a particularly pure shipment of heroin comes to town, but it never seems to last long.

It's just that the main problem I see with implementing positive eugenics on a mass scale is that every idiot I've ever met truly believed themselves to be the greatest person on earth. I'm not seeing how such people could ever be convinced that these ideas are referring to them. The source does not want to eliminate itself.

(And the smart, creative, useful people usually tend to at least try to marry up the ladder, so they tend to practise positive eugenics on their own.)

I have a question for you, the general discussion seems to be focusing on positive eugenics regarding the lower classes.

Why? There are just as many shallow vapid drones in the middle and upper clases as they are in the lower and the sub classes.

Part of what I'm trying to understand, is how you make eugenics appealing to a large number of people. Despite decrying all sorts of ideals of making a better society, people still want to have babies. A lot. They spend most of their lives trying to find a mate just so they can do just that, whether they consciously acknowledge their extreme efforts or not. From this perspective, voluntary sterilization seems unfeasible.

The extreme cases of child abuse are just that, extreme. But those don't concern me as much because laws do prevent these somewhat. There seem to be far more regular every day people who have no fucking clue how to actually connect with their kids, much less raise them to be creative, productive, human beings.

And my other concern is that herd mentality works to our society's advantage doesn't it? Millions of people keeping the ever-churning economic wheel going.

I understand the idea of responsibility, and the notion of not breeding if I carried a serious disease. But I still wouldn't want legislature preventing me from doing it.

Maybe I'm just having a hard time picturing what the 'ideal' situation would be. Less people overall, slowly bred into more conscious, intelligent human beings?

That's why I suggested paid (voluntary) sterilization (…) The big issue might be figuring out an iron-clad waiver such that the state doesn't get sued later when said crackheads are enticed by lawyers promising an even bigger payoff from a lawsuit.

You’re right: Paying them for sterilization is much more risky than fining them, and have them whish for one instead. They broke the rules and were fined. Period. What they decide to do afterwards is their decision. The option of sterilization should be suggested to them, during the legal proceeding, but never forced upon them.

Originally Posted By: Maqlu

I like your fines and penalization idea. People would certainly get behind that (so long as they figure no one will ever investigate them!)

Second step: This would indirectly discourage hypocrites to step on the red line, and indirectly encourage them to blow the whistle on those who did. Expanded prophylactic measures: The herd always keeps a watch on the neighbours in face of new regulations. People are mean. One should take advantage on that, and find some more.

Originally Posted By: Maqlu

Of course, it begs the question of what to do with druggie parents who don't have the money for a fine.

Detox and social work of course.

Originally Posted By: Maqlu

Negative eugenics in any form would certainly be a logistical nightmare, and you're right that it is effectively a pipe dream as things stand now. Although, every so often there's a story on the news about a rash of lethal overdoses whenever a particularly pure shipment of heroin comes to town, but it never seems to last long.

I do not see a rash of lethal overdoses as negative eugenics, just the natural consequence of greedy smugglers, combined with the urge of their patrons. That’s life.

Originally Posted By: Maqlu

It's just that the main problem I see with implementing positive eugenics on a mass scale is that every idiot I've ever met truly believed themselves to be the greatest person on earth. I'm not seeing how such people could ever be convinced that these ideas are referring to them. The source does not want to eliminate itself.

Honestly, I see positive eugenics in a mass scale as remote as negative eugenics. But you’re making a good point. Maybe the solution is not to implement it, or advertise it, but have some sort of stepped information made available to the interested parties instead, along with self-evaluation tests that would encourage or discourage the subjects to step further.

october1560

_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

Maybe the solution is not to implement it, or advertise it, but have some sort of stepped information made available to the interested parties instead, along with self-evaluation tests that would encourage or discourage the subjects to step further.

In my original post on this topic, the ultimate idea I was heading at was summarised in one word:

Education.

Because eugenics, as a term, is still seen as the first stepping stone to Nazi genocide (something discussed above, actually), people don't accept it as a rational point of view. And why do they think that such a result is destined if we set foot on the slippery slope?

Because they've been told to.

I wrote the original post in a small attempt to encourage discussion; it's been successful. But because there are almost as many people who think of eugenics as an unlikely pipe dream as there are those who support it wholeheartedly, the discussion has gone in all directions.

Opinions are limiting; facts mean everything.

In the United Kingdom right now, there is too much capital being wasted on a population boon that has two sources; immigration and the lower classes breeding to make more money from welfare. And because Britain is becoming the most left-wing state in the world, there isn't enough people willing to take real action into doing something about it.

Why do you think the BNP (British National Party), despite a clearly racist agenda, is gaining more noteriety and support? The people think that they are the only alternative to a large influx of unskilled immigrants. And because most of the policies the party pushes are clearly right-wing, they would deal with many other problems in the same way.

Remember:

Left Wing - The Utopian Vision (the belief that people are moulded from scratch by a better society and require legislature; Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Blair).

Right Wing - The Tragic Vision (the belief that people are naturally greedy, selfish and lazy and in need of law and order; Hobbes, Machiavelli, Thatcher, Cameron).

Just remember that it only takes one snowball to start an avalanche; especially in the political sense. And because a right-wing party always places high emphasis on law and order, we're taking a step in the right direction.

I mentioned teen pregnancy earlier. There are already laws prohibiting this, so why do the government elect to ignore these laws? The individual should have a termination and then be tried. Once that's happened to a couple of people, watch the figures nosedive. Dr. LaVey knew all too well that people respond to fear and pain more than any other stimulant, as they lack the sensitivity to deal with subtleties. The current police in Great Britain are toothless hounds and, what's worse, the people know it. A police officer can spend a fortnight doing paperwork on a criminal they've arrested and/or charged, only for a liberal judge to impose an insult instead of a sentence.

Though diving off the beaten track somewhat, the point I'm making is that eugenics is clearly a difficult premise for people to stomach at this stage. But it's something that education can "undemonize" to the point where it's at least discussed as a solution to certain social problems. The political machine requires stronger willed individuals than it currently has, more than that, individuals who stop believing society is infinitely malleable.

I have a question for you, the general discussion seems to be focusing on positive eugenics regarding the lower classes.

Why? There are just as many shallow vapid drones in the middle and upper clases as they are in the lower and the sub classes.

You’re quite right. Fact is they do not breed as much. This may seem crude, but it covers more than one aspect and also wouldn’t harm anyone with a balanced life. First it would low the numbers in the long run, secondly it would low the odds in the short run, and discourage minor derelictions on children. This is just part of the problem. Yet I do not see it too difficult to act upon those situations in the short run.

Originally Posted By: lexiphanic

Part of what I'm trying to understand, is how you make eugenics appealing to a large number of people.

You don’t. Not eugenics, per se. What you do have is a number of situations which ought to be solved, which are already appealing, and would ultimately favour selective eugenics in the long run.

Originally Posted By: lexiphanic

Despite decrying all sorts of ideals of making a better society, people still want to have babies. A lot. They spend most of their lives trying to find a mate just so they can do just that, whether they consciously acknowledge their extreme efforts or not. From this perspective, voluntary sterilization seems unfeasible.

One thing is to have babies, another thing is to breed them as faeces and leave them to rot in the open sky, dysfunctional families breeding three more, generation over generation. I do not agree with negative eugenics. Yet I do agree that sort of people should be discouraged to breed, by all means. Crime poverty and drugs are not the only problems, yet they give way to other problems, at a wider range - but that would be another topic (Is The Need for Safety Making All of Us Mutants?).

Originally Posted By: lexiphanic

The extreme cases of child abuse are just that, extreme. But those don't concern me as much because laws do prevent these somewhat. There seem to be far more regular every day people who have no fucking clue how to actually connect with their kids, much less raise them to be creative, productive, human beings.

That’s right. But positive eugenics does not equal changing the world, it would merely enhance the effects of natural selection. That’s exactly why I find mass solutions utopic. There will always be such people. What I think is that improvements may lead to further improvements, and further approaches will give way.

Positive eugenics standing for natural selection, and vice-versa.

Originally Posted By: lexiphanic

And my other concern is that herd mentality works to our society's advantage doesn't it? Millions of people keeping the ever-churning economic wheel going.

I once read an interview of Magister Gilmore where he said something, which I interpreted as follows:

Causes are no longer to be fought for with a sledge hammer. Just get people in the direction you want them to. If you want to change politics you’ll have to get to the herd first. Which do you think the role of activists is? Work the masses…Of course there are other ways to do it.

october1560

_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

TrojZyr, your comment reminded me of a Bill Hicks routine:"This is it, folks. This is the idea which has kept me virtually unknown for the past 16 years. I have watched my crowds dwindle. I am going nowhere, and nowhere quick, but, those of you who have children, I am sorry to tell you this, but they are not special. Wait! I know some of you are going: "What, what?" Let me just clarify: I know you think they're special … ha ha ha! I'm aware of that. I'm just here to tell you that they're not! Ha ha ha ha! Sorry. Did you know that every time a guy comes, he comes two-hundred million sperm? One out of two-hundred million – that load, we're only talking about one load – connected: Gee, what are the fucking odds? Do you know what that means? I've wiped nations off of my chest with a grey gym sock. Entire civilizations have flaked and crusted in the hair around my navel! […] I've tossed universes in my underpants while napping. Boom! A Milkyway shoots into my jockeyshorts: "Unngh … what's for fucking breakfast?!"

I'm laughing to myself as I recall the first time I listened to the above bit. I'll have to make a Bill Hicks signature quote...

Flesh and Bones_______________“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.” ~ Charles Bukowski

Flesh and Bones_______________“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can't readily accept the God formula, the big answers don't remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command nor faith a dictum. I am my own god. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.” ~ Charles Bukowski

I had just seen a comedy that relates to this topic. "Idiocracy" starring Luke Wilson.

The premise of the movie has an average joe placed 500 years into a future where all humans have the reasoning capacity of a four year old. The beginning of the movie has a scene that shows how stupid people breed like rats as opposed to the controlled manner in which intelligent people breed.

The movie has an interesting take on a possible future, exaggerated of course. Very possible if humanity continues down the "ignorance-is-bliss" path.

I don’t think the memory of Nazi Genocide is the only reason why people antagonize with the idea of eugenics.

Mass immigration brings along racism, for the reasons you’ve already mentioned. That’s inevitable. The scenario you have just described is extensive to all European countries which political obligation after decolonisation, some 30 or 40 years ago, included harbouring immigrants from ex-colonies. It’s only logical side effects are just starting to be a subject of true apprehension, now the guilt is gone and the effects of excessive breeding are starting to show under the shape of very resented 3rd generation teens, already entitled to citizenship therefore much more capable of effective political blackmail.

For decades (and also because of WWII memories) Governments were too concerned in staying politically correct and guilt-free to:

This is even more obvious in a country such as mine, since we were emerging from a fascist regime, and therefore more prone to fall into the opposite extreme.

Many immigrants were forced to lead miserable lives, because no one had the guts or the vision to understand, it would be better to keep them out, than facing responsibility for not giving them the proper conditions to live, once they were allowed in and started to derelict. Tolerance was the big left wing slogan by then. And some derelictions were hypocritically “excused” just to compensate a heavy conscience. It’s only logical so many of them played the victims, and found excuses to derelict even more. The rest of the story is known - Resentment, double sided racism, etc., etc.

But despite all the social distress caused by mass immigration, the herd is not prone to assume responsibilities and therefore prefers to stick to its morals. They know this situation has led xenophobic and nazi ideals to go stronger than ever. They find themselves thinking as racists while prompting against racism. They pray for a solution, but they dare not thinking of one. Being rational will simply fill them with guilt. So they antagonize anything reaching close their darkest thoughts.

It’s only obvious xenophobic groups to take advantage of such mined grounds and the fact there so much political cowardice just increases the odds of irrational fanaticism to grow and burst out, preventing solutions to be explored as rationally as they should.

october1560

Edited by leonor (04/22/0703:20 PM)

_________________________
Time does not imply evolution. Very true. We are stepping back. One generates haunting monsters that generate haunting monsters on an endless spiral of misunderstanding, unsolved needs, moral amulets eradicating both the sickness and the cure.I see a bunch of men raging at the void, haunted by their own inventions. Absurd. Totally absurd.

I am completely with you, on this topic. My wife is severely diabetic. Rather than having a biological child, who may very well have to go through the living hell of living with a debilitating disease, we have adopted a child. Fortunately, we were unable to have children. But, why let chance dictate what traits are carried on? I would very much support a system of voluntary sterilization, where incentives are given to forego childbirth, if there is a pressing need to supress certain traits, such as insulin resistance, in my wife's case. The degree to which this system could go would depend on each society. For instance, incentive could be given simply to those with genetic issues. Other societies may be comfortable giving incentives to those whose intelligence is below a certain level. If people in those situations are honest, they would choose not to have those handicaps, even if it meant they were very different people.

Unfortunately, natural selection is taking us down this path. Natural selection works by the passing down of a genetic code, with humans not much more than vehicles for said genes. If the stupid, dumb, insensitive and useless (read, "unemployed, welfare-dependent, white trash scumbags) breed more than the bright, talented, decisive and dedicated, which they currently do, there is only one place for it all to go. While this shouldn't happen, that's what you get with Utopian, left-wing ideals.

I also recommend you read "Incompitence" (spelling correct) by Rob Grant. British people may be familiar with Mr. Grant as he scripted "Red Dwarf"; but rest assured, this book is by far the greatest of his works.

For anyone who has ever worked with the mentally-ill(as I have), the mentally-retarded, or at the item return station at Wal-Mart, I stand confidentin the knowledge that a eugenics revolution willcome very soon; both to create "Supermen and Superwomen"(as may be found in the COS and TOV) but also moresalivating, t.v.-hypnotized drones, (in order to make the multi-national corporations rich!).

The slaves of the latter 21st century will not be foundin rock quarries and cotton fields, but rather in livingrooms, on comfortable chairs and sofas, cosigning theirvery souls away to QVC and HSN-- one mouse-click at a time!This could also be said of home pizza delivery and allother conveniences that require little or no movement.

"Slop them hogs! Xmas will be here before you know it!"

I like my ham sugar-cured!

GCaesarWhiskers

_________________________
May your fields always be full of foodMay your dwelling be warm and dryMay your predators be dead or far awayAnd may your dominant mate always be happy to see you

For a long time I'd been rather frustrated when people spoke of Eugenics in discussions or even arguments. I knew for sure they did not know what the word really meant, but neither did I, so I did not voice my concern. But your post has been most informative, and pretty much verified what I assumed all along. Which was, most simply, selective human breeding. The problem stemming from what criteria one uses to determine negative eugenics and positive eugenics.

I think that this is a tricky subject to make a judgement about.Of course it is desirable that we no longer have children getting pregnant and that brutish imbeciles are prevented from breeding. As for intelligent people breeding with other intelligent people and producing intelligent children- I believe that this happens already. I could be wrong.

My biggest reservation about eugenics is related to the little I know about selective breeding in animals. Aren't pedigree dogs, for example, more prone to health problems than mongrels? I remember reading somewhere that hip dysplasia is a big problem for dogs.What are the chances of this happening to the humans produced by eugenics?

That is true. There are dogs that are born with very serious health problems due to the nature of their breeding. For example, I know that English Bulldogs have respirtory problems from the inbreeding that was utilized to create the special hybrid that they are. They were initially bred to be used as entertainment taking down bulls (thus the name). These incredibly powerful dogs would latch on to the bulls at the jugular (that's why they such a massive underbite - another trait from the breeding) and bring the huge beast to the ground - usually on top of themselves. However, since the dogs had been bred with big shoulders and recessed nose, they could breath underneath the bull until it was rolled off of them. The added bonus is that these dogs are naturally, unbelievably, friendly with humans - especially children. The sad bottom line is that as wonderful as these dogs are through the generations of specific breeding and inbreeding; they are also dogs with natural health problems and shorter lifespans.

Humans have encountered similar "defects" through selective breeding. Tutankhamen is the classic example of this. His health problems and mishapen head are a result of "keeping the royal bloodline pure".

However, in both cases, the gene pools were very limited. With today's technology we can literally reach around the globe to meet other like-minded individuals. Further, you can not subtract Love from the equation. We simply would not choose a "mate" - we choose "partners" - others we can truly share our lives with intellectually, emotionally, physcially, etc. Now the "pool" has millions of choices and the chances of inbreeding are slim to say the least.

What are the chances of this happening to the humans produced by eugenics?

I doubt most Satanists are seeking to breed the "Aryan race".

Gene flow (what you're talking about) wouldn't be a major issue unless you were breeding for very, very, specific traits, within a small population. A Satanic form of eugenics would be more along the lines of eliminating weaknesses and diseases, along breeding those intelligent.

"Temporary sterilization for children when they are at the beginning of their reproductive lives would be a huge start and one that I would personally champion. Not only would this have hugely beneficial social implications (smaller school classes, less hospital beds being taken up, less people on welfare, more jobs), it’s the simplest way to ensure those without the necessary responsibility won’t breed. I’m sick to the bone every time I see a twelve or thirteen year old pregnant in the newspapers, as they are utterly flaunting the law and the law seems disinterested in doing something about it. And while there would be an outcry that civil liberties are being impinged, any reasonable moral person would need to consider the rights of an unborn child to be born into an environment that will help potential to blossom. Personally, I have no time for third-generation welfare dependents who continue to breed in order to get more money from the state. Again, eugenics could be a first step toward eliminating such things."

I see these circumstances and situations every so often and it completely sickens me. Fortunately, I live in an area where the breeders are practicing eugenics, whether they consciously recognize it or not. I also witness too many couples going through years of IVF only to have it end in miscarriage or stillbirth. Some people just cannot accept what is. Their genes simply do not reproduce. It's Darwinism and I feel enlightened to recognize it for what it is. The self-inflicted ignorance of the herd never ceases to cause me to grin and shake my head.

_________________________http://www.myspace.com/twilighttalesHear Adult Fairy Tales, Short Stories, Poetry, and more! Twilight Tales with Muse only on Radio Free Satan!!(Currently on hiatus while I attend to grad school, but I have every intention of bringing the show back when the time is right!)

The holy trinity: Me, Myself, and I.

"Does anyone ever realize life while they are living it? Every, every minute?" - Emily, Our Town, by Thornton Wilder

"Life's like a ballgame. You gotta take a swing at whatever comes along before you wake up and find it's the ninth inning." ~Vera (Ann Savage) in Detour